In July, the Senate Judiciary Committee released its report on the proposed legislation. The report includes the bill’s background and legislative history to date, as well as a section-by-section summary and other housekeeping bits.

What’s notable about PROTECT IP is how broad the support for it is. On the political front, the support is bi-partisan and from every level of government, from local to state to federal.

Private sector support is broad as well; individuals, labor unions, small businesses and large, trade associations, and other organizations have added their voice — including creators and producers in every medium and subject matter covered by copyright.

I’ve put together a list of many of the statements and editorials showing support for PROTECT IP. It’s comprehensive, though I know it’s not complete. And while I certainly want to show the breadth of support for rogue sites legislation, I also think it will be handy for future reference. Many thanks to the MPAA blog for reporting on many of these and providing copies of the letters.

05/12/11 — Joint statement of theAmerican Federation of Musicians (AFM), American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA), Directors Guild of America (DGA), International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States, Its Territories and Canada (IATSE), Screen Actors Guild (SAG), and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, representing over 400,000 “creators, performers, and craftspeople.”

05/12/11 — Independent Film and Television Alliance, Motion Picture Association of America, and National Association of Theatre Owners. Letter (PDF).

5 Comments

you can add my name to that list! hehe
I really hope they pass this bill, it looks like it has a better chance than most- to do so.
Still, don’t rest on your laurels.
If you’re negitivaly effected by pircay, contact via phone/letter/email your representative to voice your support of this bill.

Sure it has the support of a long list of copyright holders and prosecutors, but that does not mean it is widely supported. It has been described as devastating to innovation by an equally long list of innovators, unconstitutional by a long list of legal scholars, and a who’s who of Internet technologists has warned that it is devastating to the security, utility and universality of the network. But yes, you can assemble a long list of interests who stand to profit from it, if you wish. It won’t go unopposed, though.

To MLS, where “those who deliberately choose to not infringe would be impacted by the legislation.”

There is incentive and no penalty for making false accusations, there is an enormous potential for new forms of abuse, it creates an international black market for evasive channels, it’s chilling effects are profound, and there has been a lot of valuable activity going on that is not going to be easily given up.
It would be far better to just leave the Internet alone than to start this fight on the taxpayers dime.

About

Copyhype provides news and info on current developments relating to copyright law, the media industries, and the digital economy. It cuts through the hype to bring reasoned discussion aimed at both legal and nonlegal audiences.

Terry Hart is currently VP Legal Policy and Copyright Counsel at the Copyright Alliance. Any opinions expressed on this site remain his own and not necessarily those of his present or any past employers.